Re: HTTP problem or Mosaic problem?
"Jon P. Knight" <J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 10:25:31 +0200
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Message-id: <Pine.3.05.9406160908.A862-b100000@suna>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: "Jon P. Knight" <J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: HTTP problem or Mosaic problem?
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Mime-Version: 1.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
On Wed, 15 Jun 1994, Alan (Miburi-san) Wexelblat wrote:
> What's the advantage of a state-less protocol? It makes server writing
> easier. But that throws the burden off onto clients, onto the net, and onto
> information providers. You don't solve problems by shifting them around.
But you do stop the servers from tying up resources waiting for clients to
make the next move in a stateful protocol. On a heavily used server,
having the connections die between client requests can be a big win. IMHO
HTTP has been successful partly because it is easy to implement a basic
server and it doesn't rapidly overload the machine. If people feel they
need a stateful protocol, I think they should come up with something new
rather than subvert the statelessness of HTTP.
All IMHO of course.
Jon
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jon Knight, Research Student in High Performance Networking and Distributed
Systems in the Department of _Computer_Studies_ at Loughborough University.
* Its not how big your share is, its how much you share that's important. *